71–80 of 184 posts
Do not trust Verizon in the slightest. They already violate their open/unlocked agreement for LTE and prevent other LTE devices from coming on their network and prevent theirs from going on other networks. They are going to do whatever they can get away with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends. If Google et al are right and they have studies which show it degrades performance under certain conditions, then all it would take is one class action to get off the ground. People will pile on, and the evidence that Verizon knows their technology can cause problems is already mounting. That they're pushing their products through without reviews or certifications could be seen as evidence of negligence or m…
> all it would take is one class action to get off the ground What would be the cause of action? Why aren't the manufacturers of microwave ovens sued under the same cause of action?
If your WiFi were getting stomped by LTE-U, would it help to get a high-power AP from Ubiquiti etc? If so, maybe prices of such APs would drop as volume increased. Also, maybe WiFi AP software could be tweaked to compete better with LTE-U.
Do not trust Verizon in the slightest. They already violate their open/unlocked agreement for LTE and prevent other LTE devices from coming on their network and prevent theirs from going on other networks. They are going to do whatever they can get away with.
I don't necessarily think Google or (gods forbid) Comcast are above criticism, but in this case Verizon is wanting to sell the commons back to us. This is akin to Nestle saying water is not a human right, for a digital society.
Here is the actual study - it is an interesting read: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001078145 In a nutshell; the LTE transmission cycles on and off on a regular cadence without sensing if the channel is clear. This tramples over the 802.11 frames and results in higher utilization of the medium than that which is claimed by Qualcomm
Well the good news is that LTE-U appears to be for the 5 GHz band, not 2.4 GHz. You would think that it would be easier to put micro cells in the home gateways (using the bands they already own) vs. rolling out a new capabilities on the 5 GHz band in the client (I mean won't they have to wait for Apple/Android to switch to a new generation of chips?). I guess the bad feeling is that the unlicensed bands would be used…
I worry that it could make the 5G band look like 2.4G looks now. I too like the idea of a piece of spectrum used mainly by consumers or small businesses and not saturated by the big commercial gorillas. If today they are desperate enough to consider running their precious services on the wild unregulated bands then sooner or later they will be desperate enough to squeeze every last bit out of them.
Another thing is that once they are allowed in and their bottom line starts to depend on WiFi bands, they will fight to the death to stay there forever and only grow.
One would think Verizon had enough spectrum already. Sprint, sure, but Verizon?
It's entirely Sprint's fault for not building up a reliable network (of course it's in the 2.5 GHz band) on what the FCC has given them.
Edit: Maps of the relative amount of spectrum for U.S. LTE providers is here (Sprint leads the way):
http://www.fiercewireless.com/special-reports/2015-how-much-...
Do not trust Verizon in the slightest. They already violate their open/unlocked agreement for LTE and prevent other LTE devices from coming on their network and prevent theirs from going on other networks. They are going to do whatever they can get away with.
So if I buy an unlocked LTE device from somewhere, I cannot use it on verizon?
* with extreme exceptions there are some just so they can claim they meet federal guidelines
Now you might be able to trick activate an LTE sim for verizon on a verizon phone and then get it to work on your phone but technically verizon doesn't allow it
One day there is going to be a really large lawsuit about this, specifically because it violates the spirit of LTE licensing if not the actual letter of the law.
What the do to prevent their phones being taken to other carriers is even more devious. To get around LTE portability requirements, they simply disable specific LTE bands like the ones for T-Mobile, etc. So yeah you can put a T-Mobile sim in there but the phone won't get any signal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Wifi works. People will not be very happy if you single-handedly break all their wifi-enabled things. If you gradually deploy your non-solution while upselling them the cool new product, they won't even notice until it's too late.
I'm still amazed how mostly everyone is praising T-Mobile for violating net neutrality with free music and video streaming. Instead of looking at the long-term effects (prices for other types of data will stay higher), everyone just looked at the short-term effects ("we get free video streaming _and_ they made data cheaper at the same time too").
I'm not sure about their zero-rating of audio streaming.
Here is the actual study - it is an interesting read: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001078145 In a nutshell; the LTE transmission cycles on and off on a regular cadence without sensing if the channel is clear. This tramples over the 802.11 frames and results in higher utilization of the medium than that which is claimed by Qualcomm
Well the good news is that LTE-U appears to be for the 5 GHz band, not 2.4 GHz. You would think that it would be easier to put micro cells in the home gateways (using the bands they already own) vs. rolling out a new capabilities on the 5 GHz band in the client (I mean won't they have to wait for Apple/Android to switch to a new generation of chips?). I guess the bad feeling is that the unlicensed bands would be used…
It surely should not be allowed until it's significantly improved.